Should the US intervene in Syria's civil war?

Created by Hoosier Hillbilly on Aug 29, 2013

226 votes

Click on an option to vote

No

Yes

Unsure

Could care less!

And how far should "WE" go

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#506 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>\Putin is claiming the rebels did it.
Even before he said it, I thought that was not improbable. It would be the best thing that every happened to the rebels if Assad used chemical weapons. Us getting involved because of this would change the balance in favor of the rebels. If I thought this, you can be sure some rebel leader thought the same thing. In a world where the ends justify the means, it is possible and much more than remotely possible.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#507 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't read it that way.
Putin is claiming the rebels did it.
I was referring to the sentence about exceptionalism that has seemed to ruffle some feathers.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#508 Sep 12, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm embarrassed that Russia thought of this plan and we didn't. It wouldn't have taken great leadership on Obama's part or his teams part to say turn over the weapons or we will strike.
While I also don't know what the intel shows, since the incident first happened I thought all along that it was possible it was the rebels who did it, since they have the most to gain by doing so and pointing the finger at the regime. Assad has almost nothing to gain by using them, especially on such a limited scale (strategically it accomplished nothing), since it was sure to incur the wrath of the west. I'd also say if the intel does not conclusively prove that it was Assad (if it did, I think we'd all know of this), it is indeed more than just a nominal possibility that this in fact was the case.
Having said that I am no fan of Putin and I know the Russian position on Syria is motivated by self-interest. However, it doesn't change the fact that there is little to be gained by us getting involved and we should have been the ones who first suggested turning them over, such that we controlled the terms of how this would take place.
One of the reasons, IMO, that many people opposed a strike was because the rebels seem to be just as barbaric as the country's government.
Teaparty Hatriots

Arlington Heights, IL

#509 Sep 12, 2013
We are so great that the only enemy that can destroy us is, US!

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#510 Sep 12, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm embarrassed that Russia thought of this plan and we didn't. It wouldn't have taken great leadership on Obama's part or his teams part to say turn over the weapons or we will strike.
While I also don't know what the intel shows, since the incident first happened I thought all along that it was possible it was the rebels who did it, since they have the most to gain by doing so and pointing the finger at the regime. Assad has almost nothing to gain by using them, especially on such a limited scale (strategically it accomplished nothing), since it was sure to incur the wrath of the west. I'd also say if the intel does not conclusively prove that it was Assad (if it did, I think we'd all know of this), it is indeed more than just a nominal possibility that this in fact was the case.
Having said that I am no fan of Putin and I know the Russian position on Syria is motivated by self-interest. However, it doesn't change the fact that there is little to be gained by us getting involved and we should have been the ones who first suggested turning them over, such that we controlled the terms of how this would take place.
Yes, Russia wants no attack without UN approval. UN approval will never happen so in essence we would never be able to attack them if we agree to the terms.

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#511 Sep 12, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even before he said it, I thought that was not improbable. It would be the best thing that every happened to the rebels if Assad used chemical weapons. Us getting involved because of this would change the balance in favor of the rebels. If I thought this, you can be sure some rebel leader thought the same thing. In a world where the ends justify the means, it is possible and much more than remotely possible.
I posted something to that effect earlier. Martyrdom is an acceptable even glorious way to die to some.

“Maiden of Mayhem”

Since: May 08

OMFUG

#512 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
Any comments on Putin's op-ed in the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/put...
The last paragraph certainly hit the nail on the head.

“I care more about my character”

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

...... then my reputation

#513 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>I posted something to that effect earlier. Martyrdom is an acceptable even glorious way to die to some.
And they always take the innocent with them .... sad what some believe.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#514 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, Russia wants no attack without UN approval. UN approval will never happen so in essence we would never be able to attack them if we agree to the terms.
I don't agree with that. Did they seek UN approval before attacking Georgia? I'll even give them a pass on Chechnya, but no they didn't involve the U.N. at all when it came to Georgia.

The whole security counsel veto is one of the things that makes the UN very bad at resolving many international crises. At the same time, I would never want the U.S. to not have a veto and other world powers feel the same.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#515 Sep 12, 2013
victoria1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The last paragraph certainly hit the nail on the head.
I don't have a problem with other folks thinking we shouldn't play by our own rules. I think that sort of attitude is a bit arrogant.

If you can't act through the UN, I think you at least need broad international consensus before taking action outside of the UN. You'll get it right, far more times than you get it wrong, if you do that. That does not exist in this situation. That right there tells you all you need to know, in terms of whether we should act.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#516 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>I posted something to that effect earlier. Martyrdom is an acceptable even glorious way to die to some.
What's even worse is, assuming there is some intel that shows it might have been the rebels or if it is completely unclear who might have done it, I doubt our government would be honest and tell us this. As an American, I feel that is very sad.
Steph

Sta▀furt, Germany

#517 Sep 12, 2013
Can you now experience and find what was the real reason of this sudden outbreak of war-madness? What does your Us-government want to hide? There are probably special, bad issues and they try to cover it by unleashing new war? economical desaster or something another?

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#518 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, Russia wants no attack without UN approval. UN approval will never happen so in essence we would never be able to attack them if we agree to the terms.
never say never ..[sounds like a movie] any better look at your UN history again..

Bosnia/Lybia/Iraq/ are just a few ...

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#519 Sep 12, 2013
victoria1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The last paragraph certainly hit the nail on the head.
I thought the mention of Israel and the probability of them being attacked as high was striking. What type of relationship do Israel and Russia have, I have no idea.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#520 Sep 12, 2013
Steph wrote:
Can you now experience and find what was the real reason of this sudden outbreak of war-madness? What does your Us-government want to hide? There are probably special, bad issues and they try to cover it by unleashing new war? economical desaster or something another?
show me the war ...

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#521 Sep 12, 2013
Steph wrote:
Can you now experience and find what was the real reason of this sudden outbreak of war-madness? What does your Us-government want to hide? There are probably special, bad issues and they try to cover it by unleashing new war? economical desaster or something another?
I don't think it's that complicated or takes any special indepth thinking. The Assad regime is no friend to America, is no friend to it's own people, and is an close ally of Iran. There is plenty of motivation to not want him in power, from a U.S. foreign policy perspective.

The thing is, it is not our place to say who should be in power over there. It's an internal Syrian matter. We need should stay out of it.
momomom

Springfield, MA

#522 Sep 12, 2013
i think its funny when we have no answers for AMERICANS DYING IN BENGAZI but were more worried about out syria what a President

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#523 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text> What type of relationship do Israel and Russia have, I have no idea.
Not that they are hostile to each other, but I don't think very close.

Israel is our baby. The Soviets tended to support the Muslim countries whenever war broke out between Israel and them, in the past too. It was cold war politics, back then. I'm pretty sure Israel has never forgotten and pretty sure the same can be said of Russia. I don't think the fact that many jews immigrated from Russia to Israel after the collapse of the USSR in the 90s has changed anything either.

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#525 Sep 12, 2013
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
never say never ..[sounds like a movie] any better look at your UN history again..
Bosnia/Lybia/Iraq/ are just a few ...
I do know some (not all) of the history. Personally I think the UN is exactly what Putin said about the League of Nations, it "lacks real leverage". Beside that, I really can't ever see world peace happening. Take something as small and insignificant as Topix, we can't even get along here, at least we don't have missiles :)

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#526 Sep 12, 2013
Always Wary wrote:
<quoted text>
I do know some (not all) of the history. Personally I think the UN is exactly what Putin said about the League of Nations, it "lacks real leverage". Beside that, I really can't ever see world peace happening. Take something as small and insignificant as Topix, we can't even get along here, at least we don't have missiles :)
true ..what I was telling ya , that the UN gave approval over and over and over

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kentucky Outlaw Rand Paul 9 min Camilla 4
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min Denisova 159,680
motorcycle traveling stories 18 min Grateful4You 352
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 44 min Red_Forman 8,288
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 52 min Go Blue Forever 14,251
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 54 min TALLYHO 8541 40,143
News Buffalo herd roams through Hot Springs neighbor... 54 min Go Blue Forever 7
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr stacked and proud 18,126
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr I Am No One_ 161,033
More from around the web